Overall, the discussions express skepticism about the predictive power of animal studies, with some citing studies reporting concordance rates around 71%, while others emphasize the low success rates (<10%) for translating animal results into clinical outcomes, using cautious language like 'not well supported' and 'coin toss' for the reliability. The tone combines curiosity and critique, focusing on evidence and the limitations of translational research.
AgreementLow agreement
Most discussions highlight skepticism about the reliability and predictability of animal studies translating to humans, showing disagreement with positive assumptions.
InterestModerate interest
Participants show moderate interest, often questioning the study's findings and discussing relevant data and evidence, but not deeply analyzing specifics.
EngagementModerate engagement
Posts reference multiple studies, mention specific rates, and question broader implications, indicating active but not profound engagement.
ImpactNeutral impact
The conversations reflect an awareness of the limitations of animal research but do not seem to shift opinions or policy debates significantly, resulting in a neutral impact score.
Abstract in brief
The review examined how often animal studies successfully translate to human outcomes, finding a wide range of success rates from 0% to 100%, suggesting that predicting translational success is very challenging.
The study analyzed 121 references, comparing results across different species and measurement methods, but noted that many of the included studies had high bias risk and outdated data, which may affect the accuracy of conclusions.
Overall, the variability and limitations point to the difficulty in forecasting whether animal research will effectively contribute to human medical advances, highlighting the need for more reliable and current translational research methods.]
@FredWuMD @Age_Wisely @DocBastard @AllergyKidsDoc @fmd4cp @GidMK @DrAseemMalhotra @DrJenGunter @SajjadFazel @HealthWatch123 @drninashapiro @BernieGarrett @bethanylindsay @picardonhealth @DrLindaMD This helpful @Twitter account devoted to how rarely interesting animal studies translate to clinical application: @justsaysinmice
Translation from animal to a positive clinical trial low: https://t.co/6KR3Ql04f8
And < 10% of clinical trials = clinical use. Do the math. https://t.co/dQHfvmDMKo
@dr_cois @drmatthewnagra The leap from toxicology to nutrition is pretty funny, but he’s also just wrong about toxicology translation. It’s.. *somewhat* decent in non-rodents but very poor in rodents. https://t.co/PbYo6W9iaY https://t.co/71xZg7qzZs
Here is the success rate of animal model research in drug development (efficacy, PK/PD, and toxicology) for translating to human research-broken down by the animal species.
Note: This should NOT be extrapolated for the success rate in nutrition studies.
https://t.co/9FJ5wrhnJy https://t.co/af2Z4O9vmK
Feb 24, 2020 · 7 likes · 1 share · 25,299 followersView post →
N
Nick
@upRootNutrition · X
@ZKForTre The notion that animal studies are more likely to inform on human outcomes than not doesn't seem supported by current evidence. I'm not saying the domain accomplishes nothing, but translation seems to be little better than a coin toss in most cases.
https://t.co/Qw3AeeBTif
Nov 3, 2023 · 4 likes · 1 share · 9,513 followersView post →
N
Nick
@upRootNutrition · X
@Rohanburdened https://t.co/Qw3AeeBTif
Jan 22, 2025 · 2 likes · 9,513 followersView post →
TV
Tierversuche verstehen
@TVVde · X
@reat_ch @michaela_egli Danke!
Übrigens: Diese Metastudie von 2019 könnte vielleicht interessant sein in dem Kontext: https://t.co/EFxvaaErgD
Feb 9, 2022 · 2 likes · 1,860 followersView post →
Is turkesterone worth it? This video dives into what turkesterone is and its mechanisms. We also explore its potential benefits and the science behind it, addressing safety, dosing, and the impact of hormonal factors…
This video discusses a systematic review examining how often animal studies successfully translate to human outcomes, highlighting challenges and variability in success rates and the need for more reliable translational…
@CircadianCrystl Not only that, we're 100% sure that between 0% and 100% of those results translate to humans!
https://t.co/Wg7TLSl9Ol https://t.co/OsIN6nYHf3
@GMOFREEFLORIDA @Learn561894 @Vegan771783 @hvfreerangefarm @NoFarmsNoFoods @JustinTemplrVgn @CarnivoreIs @LuckyHoofer @Pablolouis9 @foxcurrants @DipeshShyamnani If artificial selection falls under "genetically engineering" isnt that just true?
Do you have evidence outside of animal studies, whose translation rates to humans are vey unpredictable? https://t.co/Wg7TLSl9Ol
Jan 22, 2025 · 2 likes · 9,513 followersView post →
MN
Mambo Number 6
@withered_haze · X
@okbutlook @svhousewife @hubermanlab Not to cause cancer. To be harmful. The odds are very similar, based on the best evidence we have, yes.
Read the paper I already linked:
https://t.co/aXshBhIZNf
@svhousewife @hubermanlab Because the translation rate of animal outcomes to human outcomes is about the same as flipping a coin.
Why do you think fewer than 10% of drugs that work in animals make it to market? Why don’t we roll out vaccines as soon as they pass animal testing?
https://t.co/aXshBhIZNf
@ZKForTre The notion that animal studies are more likely to inform on human outcomes than not doesn't seem supported by current evidence. I'm not saying the domain accomplishes nothing, but translation seems to be little better than a coin toss in most cases.
https://t.co/Qw3AeeBTif
Nov 3, 2023 · 4 likes · 1 share · 9,513 followersView post →
BT
Bhopender Thakur
@TheBhupiThakur · X
RT @MattMadore576: @dr_cois @drmatthewnagra The leap from toxicology to nutrition is pretty funny, but he’s also just wrong about toxicolog…
Dec 4, 2022 · 3 shares · 1,366 followersView post →
@dr_cois @drmatthewnagra The leap from toxicology to nutrition is pretty funny, but he’s also just wrong about toxicology translation. It’s.. *somewhat* decent in non-rodents but very poor in rodents. https://t.co/PbYo6W9iaY https://t.co/71xZg7qzZs
@bthewren But we get so much "useful" data from the biomedical experiments on nonhuman animals!
So much "good" data that we can *occasionally* beat coinflip odds!
https://t.co/o9sEe8LpA2
@reat_ch @michaela_egli Danke!
Übrigens: Diese Metastudie von 2019 könnte vielleicht interessant sein in dem Kontext: https://t.co/EFxvaaErgD
Feb 9, 2022 · 2 likes · 1,860 followersView post →
CM
Cas Monty
@CasimirMonty · X
@lwoodhouse @cauchyfriend @ZaidJilani Not sure where 95% is from, as there are very few systematic reviews looking at concordance rates -this one suggests a 71% agreement rate between animal models and humans. Not the best, but research is also being done to improve that rate in animal models. https://t.co/rORpBnRDCl
@Outdoctrination As far as I'm aware, results from animal models don't translate very well to human models. This is the only pub that I'm aware of on this topic:
https://t.co/GVTyHIbgkr
@FredWuMD @Age_Wisely @DocBastard @AllergyKidsDoc @fmd4cp @GidMK @DrAseemMalhotra @DrJenGunter @SajjadFazel @HealthWatch123 @drninashapiro @BernieGarrett @bethanylindsay @picardonhealth @DrLindaMD This helpful @Twitter account devoted to how rarely interesting animal studies translate to clinical application: @justsaysinmice
Translation from animal to a positive clinical trial low: https://t.co/6KR3Ql04f8
And < 10% of clinical trials = clinical use. Do the math. https://t.co/dQHfvmDMKo
Here is the success rate of animal model research in drug development (efficacy, PK/PD, and toxicology) for translating to human research-broken down by the animal species.
Note: This should NOT be extrapolated for the success rate in nutrition studies.
https://t.co/9FJ5wrhnJy https://t.co/af2Z4O9vmK
Feb 24, 2020 · 7 likes · 1 share · 25,299 followersView post →
SL
Simon Lohse
@si_loh · X
This: Animal to human translation: a systematic scoping review of reported concordance rates https://t.co/lCzHOsWXja
TC
MM
AM
N
TV
R
MN
G
BT
DS
MN
I
CM
DA
ꙮM
KM
JS
Z
SL